Twelve Brief Theses on H. Greulich’s Defence of Fatherland Defence[1]

Published:First published in Russian in 1931 inLenin Miscellany XVII.

      Published inVolksrechtNos. 26 and 27, January 31 and February 1, 1917.

      Written (in German) between January 13 and 17 (26 and 30), 1917.

      Translated from the German.

      Signed: –e–.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages254-259.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

1.Greulichbegins his first article with the statement
that there are now “socialists” (he probably meanspseudo-socialists) who “trust Junker and bourgeois governments”.

Thataccusation ofonetrend in present-day socialism, namely,
social-patriotism, is, of course, correct. But what do all Comrade
Greulich’s four articles show if not that he, too,blindly“trusts” the Swiss “bourgeois government”?? He even overlooks the fact
that the Swiss “bourgeois government”, because of the numerous ties of
Swiss banking capital, is not merely a “bourgeois government”, but animperialistbourgeois government.

2.Inhis first article, Greulich admits the existence oftwomain trends in the international Social-Democratic movement. He defines one
(social-patriotism, of course) absolutely correctly by branding
its supporters as “agents” of bourgeois governments.

ButGreulich is strangely oblivious to the facts, first, that the Swiss
social-patriots, too, are agents of the Swiss bourgeois government; second,
that just as Switzerland in general cannot break out of the network of
world-market ties, present-day, highly developed and immensely rich
bourgeois Switzerland cannot break out, of the network of world-imperialist
relationships; third, that it would be well worth while examining the
arguments for and against defence of the fatherland as presented throughout
the international Social-Democratic movement, particularly in context with
these world-imperialist, finance-capital relationships; fourth, that there
is no reconciling these two main trends in the international
Social-Democratic movement, and, consequentlythe Swiss partymust choosewhich trend it wants to follow.

3.Inthe second article Greulich says: “Switzerland cannot wage an
offensive war.”

Greulichstrangely overlooks the irrefutable and obvious fact that inbothpossible eventualities—namely, if Switzerland joins Germany
against England, or England against Germany—ineithercase
Switzerland will be participating in an imperialist war, in a predatory
war, in an offensive war.

BourgeoisSwitzerland can under no circumstances either alter the
nature of the present war or, in general, wage an anti-imperialist war.

Isit permissible for Greulich to depart from the “realm of facts”
(see his fourth article) and discuss some hypothetical war instead of
discussing thepresentone?

4.Greulichstates in his second article:

“ForSwitzerland, neutrality and defence of the fatherland are
identical. Whoever rejects defence of the fatherland endangers
neutrality. One must appreciate that.”

Twomodest questions to Comrade Greulich.

First,shouldn’t one appreciate the fact that faith in proclamations of
neutrality and intentions to maintain it in the present war is tantamount
not only to blind faith in one’sown“bourgeois government” andother“bourgeois governments”, but is simply absurd?

Second,shouldn’t one appreciate that in reality the position is as
follows?

Whoeverin this war accepts defence of the fatherland becomes an
accomplice of his “own” national bourgeoisie, which, in
Switzerland, too, is a thoroughly imperialist bourgeoisie, since it is
financially tied to the Great Powers and is involved in imperialist world
politics.

Whoeverin this war rejects defence of the fatherland destroys the
proletariat’s faith in the bourgeoisie andhelpsthe international
proletariat wage its struggleagainstthe bourgeoisie’s
domination.

5.Atthe close of his second article Greulich says:

“Abolishingthe Swiss militia would not yet mean eliminating war
between the Great Powers.”

Whydoes Comrade Greulich overlook the fact that the Social-Democrats
conceive abolition ofeveryarmy (and,consequently, militia) as taking place onlyaftera victorious
social revolution? That precisely now it is necessary to fight for social
revolution in alliance with the internationalist revolutionary minorities
inallthe Great Powers?

Fromwhomdoes Greulich expect elimination of “war between
the Great Powers”? From the militia of a small bourgeois state with a four
million population?

WeSocial-Democrats expect elimination of “war between the Great
Powers” to result from the revolutionary actions of the proletariat of all
the powers,greatandsmall.

6.Inthe third article Greulich contends that the Swiss workers must
“defend” “democracy”!!

IsComrade Greulich really unaware that in this warnot a
singleEuropean state is defending, nor can defend democracy? On the
contrary, forallstates, big and small, participation in this
imperialist war meansstranglingdemocracy, the triumph of
reaction over democracy. England, Germany, France, etc., offer a thousand
examples. Can it really be that Greulich is unaware of them?  Or does
Comrade Greulich so implicitly trust the Swiss, i.e. his own, “bourgeois
government”, that he regards all Swiss bank directors and millionaires as
veritable William Tells?

Revolutionarystruggle againstallbourgeois
governments—that, and that alone, and not participation in the
imperialist war, or in national mobilisation allegedly to defend the
country’s neutrality, can lead to socialism, and without socialism there is
noguaranteeof democracy.

7.ComradeGreulich writes in the third article:

“DoesSwitzerland expect the proletariat to ‘fight against itself in
imperialist battles’?”

Thatquestion shows that Comrade Greulich has his feet securely planted
on national soil, but, unfortunately, in the present war there isnosuch soil for Switzerland.

Itis not Switzerland that “expects” this of the proletariat, but
capitalism, which in Switzerland, as in all civilised countries, has becomeimperialistcapitalism. Today, the ruling bourgeoisie “expects”
the proletariat ofallcountries to “fight against itself in
imperialist battles”. That is what Greulich overlooks. And today there is
no means of protecting ourselves against that eventuality saveinternational revolutionary class struggle against the bourgeoisie!

Whydoes Greulich forget that, way back in 1912, the Basle Manifesto of
the International directly stated, first, that the basic character of the
future war is determined byimperialistcapitalism, and, second,
spoke ofproletarian revolution preciselyin connection withthiswar?

8.Inthe third article Greulich writes:

Revolutionarymass struggle “instead of utilising democratic rights”
is a “very vague concept”.

Thisproves that Greulich accepts only the bourgeois-reformist path and
rejects or ignoresrevolution. That befits a Grütlian, but it
certainly does not befit a Social-Democrat.

Revolutionwithout “revolutionary mass struggle” is impossible. There
have never been such revolutions. In the imperialist era that has now
begun, revolutions are inevitable in Europe too.

9.Inthe fourth article Comrade Greulich frankly says he will
“naturally” resign from the National Council if the party rejects defence
of the fatherlandin principle, adding that such a rejection would
imply “violation of our unity”.

Thatis not open to misinterpretation: it is a clear ultimatum to the
party on the part of the social-patriot National Council
members.Eitherthe party accepts these social-patriot views,or“we” (Greulich, Muller, etc.) will resign.

But,frankly, what kind of “unity” can we speak of? Only, of course,
of “unity” of the social-patriot leaders withtheirseats on the
National Council?!

Principledproletarian unity implies something quite different: the
social-patriots, i.e., the defenders of the “fatherland”, should
“unite” with the social-patriot, thoroughly bourgeois
Grütli-Verein. The Social-Democrats, who reject fatherland defence,
should “unite” with the socialist proletariat. That is perfectly obvious.

Wefirmly hope that Comrade Greulich will not wish to disgrace himself
by trying to disprove (despite the experience of England, Germany, Sweden,
etc.) that “unity” of the social-patriots, those “agents” of bourgeois
governments, with the socialist proletariat can lead only to sheer
disorganisation, demoralisation, hypocrisy and lies.

10.The“pledge” of National Council members to defend the country’s
independence is “incompatible”, in Greulich’s view, with refusal to
defend the country.

Verywell! But what revolutionary activity is “compatible” with
“pledges” to uphold the laws of capitalist states?? The Grütlians,
i.e., servants of the bourgeoisie, recognise only legal methods as a matter
of principle. So far, not a single Social-Democrat has rejected revolution,
or accepted only such revolutions as were “compatible” with “pledges”
to uphold bourgeois laws.

11.Greulichdenies that Switzerland is a “bourgeois class state”
“in the absolute meaning of the term”. He defines socialism (at the end
of his fourth article) in a way that wholly precludes both social
revolution and all revolutionary action. Social revolution is
“utopian”—that is the short meaning of all Greulich’s long speeches and
articles.

Verywell! But that is the most blatant Grütlianism, not
socialism. It is bourgeois reformism, not socialism.

Whydoes not Comrade Greulich openly propose that the words about
“proletarian revolution” be deleted from the 1912 Basle Manifesto? Or the
words about “revolutionary mass action” from the 1915 Aarau resolution?
Or that all the Zimmerwald and Kienthal resolutions be burned?

12.ComradeGreulich has both feet planted on national soil—on
bourgeois-reformist, Grütli soil.

Heobstinately ignores the imperialist character of the present war and
the imperialist ties of the present-day Swiss bourgeoisie. He ignores the
fact that the socialists of the whole world are split into social-patriots
and revolutionary internationalists.

Heforgets that, in reality, only two paths are open to the Swiss
proletariat:

Firstpath. Help its own national bourgeoisie to arm, support
mobilisation for the alleged purpose of defending neutrality, and face the
daily menace of being inveigled into the imperialist war. In the event of
“victory” in this war—lie reduced to semi-starvation, record the loss
of 100,000 killed, put more billions of war profits into the pockets of the
Swiss bourgeoisie, assure it more profitable investments abroad, and fall
into more financial dependence on its imperialist “allies”—the Great
Powers.

Secondpath. In close alliance with the internationalist revolutionary
minority in all the Great Powers, wage a resolute struggle against all
“bourgeois governments”, and primarily against itsown“bourgeois government”, placing no “trust” whatever in its own
bourgeois government,, or in its talk of defending neutrality, and politely
invite the social-patriots to move over to the Grütli-Verein.

Inthe event of victory—be for ever rid of high costs of living,
hunger and war and, together with the French, German and other workers,
stage the socialist revolution.

Bothpaths are difficult, both entail sacrifices.

TheSwiss proletariat must choose—does it want to make these
sacrifices for the sake of the Swiss imperialist bourgeoisie and one of the
Great-Power coalitions, or to deliver humanity from capitalism, hunger and
war.

Theproletariat must choose.

[1]“TwelveBrief Theses on H. Greulich’s Defence of Fatherland Defence” was
written in reply to a series of articles by Greulich, a Swiss
social-chauvinist, “Zur Landesverteidigung” (“Defence of the Fatherland
Issue”), which appeared inVolksrecht, January 23–26, 1917
(Nos. 19–22).

Lenin’stheses, signed “—e—”, appeared in the same paper on
January 31–February 1 (Nos. 26–27).Volksrechteditor Ernst Nobs
deleted several paragraphs and inserted the word Genosse (Comrade) before
the name Greulich. Nobs deleted the following passages: =

(1) in Section 9, from the third paragraph beginning with the words “But,
frankly, what kind of unity...”, and up to the end of the Section; =

(2) in Section 11, the whole of the second paragraph from the words “Very
well! But that is ...” and to the words “...not socialism”; =

(3) in Section 12, the concluding words of the fifth paragraph “...and
politely invite the social-patriots to move over to the Grütli-Verein”.